Posted on 09/30/2007 10:12:11 AM PDT by traviskicks
Edited on 09/30/2007 4:01:53 PM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
Manchester – Calls to abolish the Internal Revenue Service and repeal the Constitutional amendment that established the federal income tax drew loud applause yesterday for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.
The Texas Congressman drew an eclectic mix of more than 500 supporters -- young and old, Libertarians and anti-war Democrats, independents and conservative Republicans -- who cheered his message of limited government, low taxes, free markets, bringing the troops home from Iraq, and returning to a monetary policy based on the gold standard.
Paul said the gathering at Veterans Park wasn't about him, but about his message -- which, he said, has been resonating with more and more people.
"Something very significant is happening in this country today. The paradigm is shifting away from government controlling our lives by force," he said. "People are sick and tired of what's happening and want to control (their) own lives."
He said people should be able to keep 100 percent of the fruits of their labor. Income tax is an example of the government controlling people, he said, as are the draft, prohibition on drugs, seat belt laws and other regulations.
Paul said current monetary policy amounts to a "secret sinister tax" that takes wealth from the middle class and poor, and redistributes money to Wall Street and the wealthy. The crowd broke into applause when he said the federal reserve system should be abolished.
Earlier in the day, Paul told three New Hampshire reporters he hoped to turn the enthusiasm his campaign has generated -- through the Internet, in "meet-ups" and through campaign donations -- into votes.
The physician-turned-politician said he expects to spend more and more time in New Hampshire. "The slogan on your license plate would indicate this should be fertile ground for us here," he said, alluding to the state's "Live Free or Die" motto.
Paul said he is running on the same policies President Bush advocated when he ran in 2000, which, he added, are the same ones Republicans have run on for years: a balanced budget, limited government, personal freedom and no nation building.
"Most Republicans -- the leadership in Washington -- don't believe in their own platform; that's why they are losing," Paul said.
Rather than try to spread democracy around the world, he said, politicians ought to focus on some of the shortcomings in this country.
"You don't get a fair shake unless you join the establishment," he said.
Paul, who ran for President in 1988 as the Libertarian Party's nominee, said it's more practical to run as a Republican, noting he spent half of his money in 1988 just trying to get on the ballot in all 50 states.
The door-to-door canvassing that followed the rally -- dubbed the Paul Family Walk -- included about 30 family members who led groups of campaigners in the Queen City, Concord and Nashua. Paul himself visited New England College, Dartmouth College and the Dartmouth Medical School after the rally.
Liz Viering and her husband Peter, from Stonington, Conn., said Paul's opposition to the war in Iraq is the major reason they are supporting him. "Money spent on wars of choice takes money away from other programs," she said.
Miles LaPlant, a 21-year old college student from Attleboro, Mass., said Paul is the first candidate who has captured his attention. LaPlant said he likes Paul's stances regarding the Constitution and the country's founding principles.
Jason Kantz, his wife, Angela, and their two children came up from Cambridge, Mass., for the rally. Kantz said Paul "is the only candidate that gives logical answers and means what he says."
He said Paul's stand on the war in Iraq is also an important issue for him. "We need to reduce our involvement around the world and the amount of money we are spending," Kantz said.
Long-time Libertarian Party member Dennis Corrigan of Boxford, Mass., said he supported Paul when the Congressman ran for President as the Libertarian nominee. He said he has been a Libertarian for 40 years and headed the party in Canada at one time.
Corrigan and a friend were soliticiting signatures for a Massachusetts ballot initiative outlawing the income tax. Corrigan said his friend moved to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project, adding that he plans to move to the state, as well.
Thomas Clark, Minister of the Somersworth Tri-City Convenant Church, gave the invocation for the rally. Before the rally, he said he supports Paul because of his pro-life stance. "The pro-life issue is a major issue for me," Clark said.
Paul concluded the rally by encouraging his supporters to keep the faith, saying most mass movements have been driven by only 2 or 3 percent of the population.
"You are part of that 3 percent today," he said.
A word from Jim Robinson to the moonbats:
To all antiwar moonbats, Paulistas included:
Hey, if you don't like FR and or our support the war policies leave. Go find a website that supports your unfortunate, short-sighted and misguided antiwar efforts. It's really that simple.
In case you antiwar Paulistas haven't noticed, Free Republic supports the war effort 100%. Many of our chapters protest against the antiwar moonbats either weekly, monthly or whenever the opportunity arises. The DC Chapter has been protesting against the antiwar moonbats EVERY Friday night at Walter Reed for three years.
Free Republic has co-sponsored several cross country caravans and hundreds of rallies in cities all across the country and in DC against the antiwar moonbats and in support of our Commander-in-chief, our troops, the war effort and our Gold Star and Blue Star families, many of whom are FReepers.
When you are supporting antiwar moonbats you are working against Free Republic's mission, hurting our efforts, hurting our families who have lost loved ones or have loved ones involved in the fighting, hurting our troops, damaging their morale, working against our efforts to defeat the enemy, and, in fact, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Antiwar moonbats are the domestic enemy. Antiwar moonbats willingly give aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime. In my book, that's tantamount to treason. Ron Paul is an antiwar moonbat. You figure it out. If antiwar moonbats are the enemy and Ron Paul is an aid and comfort supplying antiwar moonbat, then Ron Paul IS the enemy!
If you Paulistas are looking for support on FR for an antiwar moonbat who is giving aid and comfort to our enemies, you're nuts! Free Republic will NEVER support antiwar moonbats!
As far as our official policy on Ron Paul is concerned, it's the same policy we have for his antiwar moonbat allies the traitors Harry Reid, Chuckie Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Cindy Sheehan, Barbara Streisand, Jane Fonda, CodePink, International Answer, et al and their flaming antiwar spam monkeys. Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!
Where the hell did you guys ever get the idea that enemy supporting antiwar moonbats would be welcome on FR?
That plain enough for you or do I need to spell it out?
Worse yet, the Act serves to legitimize and further entrench the Roe v. Wade decision. Like Roe, the Act federalizes law which the Constitution properly leaves to the states. Constitutionally, virtually all crimes are state matters. The only true federal crimes are those listed in Article I (treason, piracy, and counterfeiting); all other crimes are left to the jurisdiction of the states under the 10th Amendment. Yet Congress finds it much easier to federalize every human evil rather than uphold the Constitution and respect states' rights. Impassioned pro-life Americans might want a federal criminal law protecting fetuses, but in truth the federal government is more likely to pass laws favoring abortion rather than outlawing it. Once we allow federal control over abortion, we lose the opportunity for states to enact pro-life legislation. Numerous states already have laws that punish the act of murder against a fetus. Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters. All abortion foes must understand that the real battle should be fought at the state level, where grassroots respect for life can influence state legislatures. (April 30, 2001)
To Ron Paul, and unfortunately to his imitators in this Republican field, such as Thompson, Brownback, Huckabee, McCain, and Romney, states' rights supercede the unalienable right to life.
Their position is identical to that of the defenders of slavery in the 1850s. Well, maybe not identical. It's worse. You can recover from being held as a slave. But you can never recover from being dead.
Over fifty million American children have died. Thousands more die every day. Even under the best case scenario promoted by people like Ron Paul, most of the same children would still be brutally killed. After all, the vast majority of abortions are taking place in liberal-controlled urban territory.
You’re a very strange bird.
You omitted this part...
“Thirty years later, the pro-life fight goes on. Well-intentioned pro-life advocates supported a bill in Congress last week called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, believing it represented a step toward restoring respect for unborn life. Unfortunately, the bill does not accord any human or legal status to fetuses, but rather creates a new federal penalty for harming the mother of a fetus. The reasoning is deeply flawed: if there is to be a greater penalty for harming a pregnant woman than an ordinary woman, it must be based on the harm to the unborn child. In other words, the enhanced penalty must be for the second offense to the second human life. Yet the legislation evades this fundamental truth by refusing to recognize the fetus as a human person. So the Act is seriously flawed and will not engender new respect for unborn life.”
Can you not follow his line of reasoning here?
The top down approach has not nor will not work.
What is wrong with Ron Pauls idea a creating a pro-life nation, not from the top down, but one community at a time.
He knows the unborn child is a person, but refuses to grant that person Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment protections.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Well at least you answered my first question.
A simple no I can’t would have sufficed.
What is wrong is that Utah or South Dakota babies don't have a superior unalienable right to life to Massachusetts, New York or California babies.
In America, we understand that the right to life comes from the Creator, not from man, and cannot therefore be rightfully alienated by men.
In America, we understand that the primary purpose of human government is the protection of unalienable rights.
America's founding paragraph:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
So, you don't believe in the provisions of the Bill of Rights?
It was through "due process of law" that RoevWade was enacted. The fetus was deemed to be a non-person by law. Executions are done using the same "due process" of the courts. It is a poorly formulated law. It was arrogant of the Court to presume to declare when life begins.
He knows the unborn child is a person, but refuses to grant that person Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment protections.
He has introduced various Bills in Congress attempting to do that very thing. It is the basis of his H.R. 1094: Sanctity of Life Act of 2007.
What candidate has tried to do more and why isn't the pro-life movement behind his latest effort?
Personally, I'd love to take that a step further and advocate that passengers be armed too.
I don’t know how you’re missing the fact that Ron Paul wants the states to decide if persons in their jurisdiction are worthy of enjoying the right to life.
And from you I can not get an answer to some very simple questions.
Goodnight.
I just wanted to set a few records straight.
I understand why some of you do not support Ron Paul, your Litmus test is the war. For some reason you think that only a liberal democrat can be against the war. Well then 70 percent of the USA must be democrat by those standards.
In reality, only about 10 percent of republican are against the war totally, there were ten candidates, 10 percent of them were against the war. Sounds about right.
Now lets get down to specifics.
1st Ron Paul is for a strong defense. He has always stated this over the years. He has even penned legislation to keep from shutting down military bases on American soil. He has also worked very hard to increase the budget of the VA.
It is not his support for the military you are against. It is his Foreign Policy. Ron Paul is running on a similar Foreign Policy that George Bush ran on in 2000. I guess you forgot that one.
‘But 9/11 changed all that’
Have any of you read the 9/11 Commission Report or did your own research in why we were attacked? Osama bin Laden stated in 96 and again in 98 that he was going to attack us on our soil because of our support of Israel, our bombing of Iraq plus sanctions, and because we had a military base in the land of Mecca.
What does all three of these have in common? It is our Foreign Policy. Ron Paul has been saying that our Foreign Policy was going to cause problems for the last 30 years.
Now it has and we are making it worse. Do any of you really think we are fighting terrorism in Iraq? Before we invaded, there was no al Qaida in Iraq. Saddam and bin Laden were enemies.
I have done a lot of research of the Middle East in the last 6 years. I wanted to understand why we were attacked. If you have read any of bin Ladens speeches, you would understand that he is attacking us because HE wants to be free. Not because WE are free. He even stated this in one of his speeches when he said they are not attacking Sweden, a country considered one of the freest in the world.
please read this speech from 2004 to understand what I am trying to say.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3966817.stm
I live in fear, not of terrorist attacks, but of our own Foreign Policies that do not take into account what our actions abroad cause. They create hate. Hate of America.
How can we change this? That is the 20,000 dollar question. I support the Foreign Policies outlined by Ron Paul in this election. I think it is a step in the right direction for world peace. Osama will stop attacking us and start attacking his own leaders. He has stated this as recently as last month, or did any of you even read that.
I ask that you read his speech from last month.
Specially the part where he says we only have two choices, one is that he will keep fighting us and he will bankrupt us like he did with the Soviet Union, and the other is to change our political leadership.
The media changed what he said, read it for yourself.
http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000622.htm
Near the end of his speech, a few pages after giving us two choices, he points out that we are not following God (don’t forget God is Allah, Muslims believe it is the same God and that Jesus was a prophet) He says our Bible was changed by man and then he INVITES us to look at Islam. He states that we would not be a waring nation and would not be controlled by big businesses if we were Islamic.
I did not read that any different than a Christian telling us that Jesus died for our sins. He was just preaching to us. No where did he state we only have two choices, die or convert.
I truly believe if you know the facts, you might feel differently. It took me a long time to realize this. I didn’t even want to believe it myself at first. I thought that all Muslims wanted to kill me, well after talking with several, I realized they just want the same things we do.
The only other point I would like to make is that the Texas Republican Party Platform is Ron Paul’s platform with one exception, ‘preemptive war’.
http://www.texasgop.org/site/PageServer?pagename=library_platform
Ron Paul believes in the Just War theory of Christian tradition by Augustine in Civitas Dei, ‘The City of God.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war
Please remember, Ron Paul voted to go into Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden. This was a ‘Just War’, we were attacked. 6 years later and Osama is still a free man.
D. Bryan James
Owner - Mr. Jim’s Pizza
Carrollton, TX
You go Jim! You have no idea how many times I’ve wanted to tell the Ron Paul nutters to kiss my A$$.
Simple challenge to you Paulites. With NO slogans. NO demagoguery. NO sliming everyone else who doesn’t share your faith. Tell me HOW Paul would do anything. Here is his “Issues page”. NOT a word about what or how he would do anything. Just a bunch of slogans strung together basically screaming bile at everyone and everything.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/
See, you need us to support Dr Paul. We have no reason to support Dr Paul. So please explain to us WHAT and HOW a Paul Administration would do anything. Do that with OUT sliming any one. No name calling, no hysteric hyper emotive rhetoric. None of the usual Paulite personal attacks in place of reason argument. No cut and pasting of sound bite statements from Paul speeches. NO statements of what YOU think Paul means. REAL plans with documented links so we can read them for ourselves.
...let's see some scripture in which Christ tells us to compel our fellow man to righteousness at the point of a gun or by the scruff of his neck.
You responded:
"Righteousness exalts a nation, But sin is a reproach to any people." - Proverbs 14:34
"The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God." - 2 Samuel 23:3
Again, there is plenty more, if I care to take the time to post them.
Let's examine:
1. Those are both from the Old Testament, so they are not things Christ said.
2. Neither of them says anything about forcing others to be righteous.
If you can't post something that is a rebuttal something I actually posted, please don't waste my time or yours. And before you simply accuse me of not reading, do me the courtesy of actually reading the above.
And you still have yet to produce anything demonstrating that the Founders were not libertarians.
Well, I understood that I was talking to a Bible-believing Christian, by your own words.
And Bible-believing Christians know that “The God of Israel, the Rock of Israel,” is, was, and always will be Jesus Christ, the One Who created us.
They also know that all Scripture is God-breathed, God-inspired.
Sorry if I was mistaken in taking you at your word.
And, you’re the only one who said anything about “forcing others to be righteous.” (I believe that is commonly known as a strawman argument.) You can’t force people to be righteous. However, human government IS given to mankind as a gift by our Creator to restrain unrighteousness, human nature, in this world.
Sorry. Didn't examine all the posts. I failed to even look at your tagline...:-)
And FDT is a globalist.
The two go hand-in-hand, IMO.
Well, good luck with that!
And welcome to Free Republic, sir!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.